This is such a pile of Bull garbage.

[MeMelYup]

I was glancing through Facebook and came across this article. It is so wrong in so many ways and supposedly by learned people. These people are so highly opiniated of themselves and convinced that they are the only ones that are right.

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/psychology-gun-ownership/

Be sure to read the comments also.

[NotRPB]

The Psychology of Gun Ownership

Several studies conducted in recent years...

Which Studies, conducted by whom, funded by whom?
I read it, I looked for the Doctor's name who was the author ... ?

Is that non-specific, unsigned, editorial opinion article supposed to be a response to

Raging Against Self Defense:
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm
or to

Open letter to the American Psychiatric
Association from Gene Flick, MD.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/open-letter-to-apa.htm

If so, I wonder what doctor was the author?

[usurp31]

Yeah, that is a pile-o-cr@p! The articles against gun control through JFPO at least made up a bit for that other one. It goes deeper than gun phobia; and the two camps seem to be 1) I'll let someone else take care of me and 2) I'll take care of myself. Some people really need to examine themselves and take personal responsibility for their actions AND their safety. Gun control is part of a much larger societal shift; and the tendency is to rely (over-rely) on others for everything. Good articles.

[Sport Coach]

I had the time and dug through all references I could find in this article. The article references cited "information was obtained from the Brady Law Center" and another source I couldn't find with many attempts. One of the related articles interviewed people in Detroit who, if you're anti gun says, we need guns to be manly. If you're pro gun the article says, we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones because it's our duty as father/husband and we live in Detroit where things have gotten very bad. So, once again an interview-like "study" decides to blow conclusions out of proportion with questionable and definitely not objective sources.

[KLB]

“The gun rights platform is not just about guns. It’s also about a crisis of confidence in the American dream. And this is one reason gun control efforts ignite such intense backlashes: Restrictions are received as a personal affront to men who find in guns a sense of duty, relevance and even dignity.”

There may be a kernel of truth in this observation.

"Participants holding guns were “more likely to . . . engage in threat-induced behavior."

If so, why we don't see that in crime statistics? Statistics show the contrary, that handgun licensees are less likely than average to commit a crime.

"Those with racist views are more likely to oppose gun reform."

The argument seems to be that racists like guns (maybe, I don't know), so people who like guns are racist. That's a logical fallacy, otherwise known as horse puckey.

"Conservatives are far more likely to own firearms than others."

The point being what exactly? This point will seem cogent only to those who equate conservative with bad.

"Risk-taking students are more likely to have guns at college."

Interesting, if true, but I'm skeptical. Most so called social science is thinly disguised progressive propaganda. I find this and most of the negative points raised to be unlikely.

[Nuts]

The Psychology of Gun Ownership

Several studies conducted in recent years...

Which Studies, conducted by whom, funded by whom?
I read it, I looked for the Doctor's name who was the author ... ?

Is that non-specific, unsigned, editorial opinion article supposed to be a response to

Raging Against Self Defense:
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm
or to

Open letter to the American Psychiatric
Association from Gene Flick, MD.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/open-letter-to-apa.htm

If so, I wonder what doctor was the author?

Great set of articles. Thanks

[Skiprr]

I was glancing through Facebook and came across this article. It is so wrong in so many ways and supposedly by learned people. These people are so highly opinionated of themselves and convinced that they are the only ones that are right.

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/psychology-gun-ownership/

Be sure to read the comments also.

Do read the comments. What you'll note is the lack of a single one in support of the Second Amendment.

But, with the number of privately-owned firearms greater than the population count, I'm absolutely certain that no gun owner ever posted a contrary opinion.

Give it a try. I'm sure the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is so fair and honest that it's certain your intelligent pro-2A comment will be published.

[lfinsr]

Nearly all studies will have a predetermined outcome depending on who's running the program. Very few studies today, especially in academia, are objective. All have underlying motives to arrive at the conclusion they want to see.

That said, given it's an article on csgv.org, I'm not going to get my blood pressure up reading it. I feel certain there's nothing good to see so I'll just have to miss out on it...

[ShepherdTX]

They clearly didn't think about who all this actually applies to before publishing.

Given that nearly every law enforcement officer in the country both owns and carries a gun, in one article CSGV managed to label all of them as bunch of insecure, angry, impulsive, paranoid, racist, conservatives.

Obviously we need to be far more concerned about the psychology of anti-gunners if this is their delusional view of reality.

[KLB]

Here's a much calmer discussion from a serious economist:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... e-n2181117

[Middle Age Russ]

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence... "Gun violence" is a term concocted to imbue hardware with human, or at least animal, characteristics. The ability to commit violence is simply not present in a firearm absent a user who uses it in that manner. It seems to me that either the coalition is mis-named and mis-purposed or their objective was met before they began. If they changed their name to the more appropriate "Coalition to Stop Criminal Violence" I might begin to take them more seriously, but then again their purpose would be enacting laws that ban criminal violent behavior -- laws that already exist.

[Abraham]

My guns are not, sob, cough, sniffle anthropomorphic.

[MechAg94]

Here's a much calmer discussion from a serious economist:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... e-n2181117

I realize this is partly a thought exercise, but I would disagree with some of his statements.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

This goes back to sacrificing rights for security. For argument purposes, it isn't so bad, but you have to be careful that you are not saying you would give up guns for safety. In this case, he is using it because he already knows the answer. In the right circumstances, I might use that argument also.

[MechAg94]

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

Other quotes like this I agree with. It isn't necessarily more guns or less guns, but the mindset of the people and leadership. The same mindset that supports gun control also is soft on crime and punishment in general.